Case Studies
Below are some example of case studies from developing, transitional, and developed economies that will illustrate the overall format and style used in the book. They have been randomly selected from a poll of already written case studies.
Reclaiming Neighborhoods, Resources, and Lives in Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Prologue
This case presents a “multi-faceted approach to solving the complex problems of inner-city vacant homes and unemployment and the need to protect forests in an age of climate change and can serve as a model for other cities.” In Baltimore, a city with thousands of vacant and abandoned homes, reclaiming wood, bricks, and other valuable materials through a de-construction approach (rather than demolition) has been shown to “help remedy problems related to blight and unemployment and contribute to neighborhood revitalization.” This approach has also reduced incarceration and recidivism through early release and employment, both improving the lives of those previously incarcerated, and reducing the societal costs of crime and the correctional system. This successful community-wide effort to increase environmental, economic, and social benefits, as well as sustainability and resilience relied on the willingness of a team of partners to face large scale challenges while engaging in collaborative problem solving. This innovative approach to restoring failing neighborhoods not only recovered valuable and re-useable resources including lumber, bricks, and other building materials, but also resulted in a systemic positive change that improved the lives of local citizens. |
This community initiative received the Mutual of America Partnership Award in 2018. In an official statement, "Mutual of America proudly recognizes Humanim, Inc. and its partners for their pioneering work with Baltimore City Deconstruction Project, providing employment opportunities to underserved residents while reducing urban blight, reclaiming materials and increasing green spaces"
Click on the Link Below to view the entire Case Study
|
|
Wetlands Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Ecuadorian Andes, Ecuador.
Prologue High in the Southern Andes of Ecuador is a major wetland that provides critical water resources to adjacent local communities on the Pacific and the Amazon sides of the continental divide. Visitors to this remote region are amazed by the verdant green hills and mountains and the pristine lagoons, and peatlands. The un-disturbed ecology, the vulnerable and endangered specifies that inhabit this region, and the exceptional water resources directly impact the livelihoods and culture of residents including the Saraguru, Shuar, and Mestiza people who have lived here for generations. However, concerns from recent and potential mining claims in this region as well as some road construction raised concerns that adverse or inappropriate uses could seriously impact this critical and fragile ecological habitat, the water resources, and negatively impact the future livelihoods of nearby local communities. A local university, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL), recognized these ecological values, potential threats, and the importance on future conservation planning. UTPL has been collaboratively working with these local communities for over ten years to find a shared approach that will protect and preserve this critical wetland, support the livelihoods and social health and vitality of these communities. Full consensus was reached by all local com munities in 2015 on protecting this wetland region through the UN Ramsar Convention program. However, most recently, competing this conservation and sustainable livelihoods initiative has been temporarily delayed. This case study also illustrates how UTPL approached their research role with these diverse local communities. This regional effort has raised knowledge and understanding of the critical ecological systems and grown the social capital and trust across local cultural and indigenous Click on the Link Below to view the entire Case Study |
case_study-_eucador__chapter_6__1-27-2019.docx | |
File Size: | 8805 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Communal Forest, Ixtlan de Juarez, Oaxaca, Mexico
Prologue This indigenous local community had been economically and socially repressed and marginalized for many years by the Mexican national government and wealthy industrialists. During this dark period, the natural resources that were the economic foundation of this Zapotec community, were exploited and removed by these with external powers, a clear example of environmental in-justice. Only after, what some locally referred to as a local revolution, could they regain control over their community and the ecological systems that supports it. Rather than privatize the land, it was decided that nearly all of the land would be managed as a “commons” or “common-pool-resource” for the community members immediate and future needs. The resulting actions turned around the previous years of environmental in-justice and built a new future for all residents of Ixtlán de Juárez where the sustainable yield of natural resources would be equitably shared. At the close of this case study we will share specific reflections on how their efforts reflect Principle C: Resources and Equity. Click on the Link Below to view the entire Case Study |
case_study-__prin._c._rev_3_-_ixtlan_de_juarez__-_mexico.docx | |
File Size: | 1049 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Brief Stories
Below are short versions of the cases studies that introduce and describe the principles discussed in the book. They range from 350 to no more than 700 words in length (with the possible of a photo or illustration).
Principle A: Embrace Public Participation and Mobilization of Stakeholders
Watermelons and Toilets
One fall day in the 1990’s when I was working with the Bulgarian Ministry of the Environment on developing a new national solid waste policy, I saw a large pile of Watermelons for sale in downtown Sophia and next to it was an equally large pile of toilets. This odd juxtaposition caught my eye. Having commuted back and forth to Bulgaria for nearly three years, I immediately knew why and it illustrates what happens in a top-down, expert driven society that all of Eastern Europe suffered under until 1990 when the totalitarian communist system was driven out by the citizens.
The first time I used an Eastern European (Soviet inspired) toilet was in Latvia. The design appeared to be standard across Eastern Europe (and I assume Russia). The waste presented by the user sat on a small internal shelf above the water. The toilet, then “kind-of” flushed, but did not have a vapor U-trap and vent that prevented the sewer fumes from entering the toilet room and house. The experts “solved” this unpleasant situation by having the toilet in a small separate room with an air-tight door that they designed so that the fumes would not enter the home. Problem solved, or at least reduced, except when you had to open the door to use the toilet. There was no option for another toilet design. The efficiency on having only one toilet, massed produced, ruled the day. Society at that time was not encouraged nor permitted to provide feedback to the government. It is important to note that those who complained could find themselves in Siberia, as one erected monument in Madona, Latvia attested. Once the expert driven, centrally planned society system collapsed and the residents were able to scrape up enough money, they bought a western toilet along with a watermelon. They finally had a choice to choose an effective toilet.
Siting a Waste Landfill
No one wants a landfill in their town or near their home, this was certainly true in the environmentally conscious State of Vermont. The term NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) captures this response. Eleven Vermont local governments formed a regional solid waste district[i] to more effectively recycle waste, to compost some waste, to remove household hazardous waste for re-processing, and to education its citizens on resource conservation. However, there was still some waste that needed to be buried (since incineration of this residual waste would create air pollution). Where will this waste be buried?
One common approach is to stealthily site a landfill then announce the decision (usually on a Friday afternoon). This regional community authority decided to undertake this challenge through a full transparent public participation process. The process was set up to find the most environmentally appropriate location for a new landfill. Siting factors such as height above the water table, distance from a school or water body, and minimum distance from homes was debated and agreed to in a public session by representatives of all 11 towns. Then engineers were hired to assess every acre of the 11 towns using the 15 or more siting factors to eliminate all but about 20 potential sites. The potential 20 sites, on a map, were then published in the regional newspaper and a public meeting was called to solicit input from all residents. Yes...this was a large meeting, some individuals bringing along their lawyer. All information and documents, including that from the engineers, was public. The new regional solid waste board was committed to embrace public participation and transparency throughout this challenging process.
The meeting started with the Chair stating that this waste district was formed to help all 11 communities solve their waste problem. He quipped... “please do not refer to this as our waste, it is your waste.” He also asked for those present to provide information why a particular site was not suitable for a landfill, information that they knew and we did not. By the end of a long, but civil, meeting all but a few sites had been eliminated, subject to confirming the newly received information. Within 3 to 6 months, all parties, including the town that would host the new landfill site, reached an unanimous agreement. The site was purchased and permitted.
This brief example illustrates that is possible to face difficult and challenging community problems and to collaboratively find sustainable approaches through an honest, transparent and engaging public participation process. Solutions are then “owned” by all that who step forward to participate.
Principle B - Build Social Capital and Collaborative Partnerships
Vermont’s First Un-Shopping Center
Prior to giving a community presentation on the recently opened “Un-Shopping Center”, a local university president introduced me as a “serial collaborator.” Although initially thrown off balanced by his comment, I then realized that this atypical expression appeared to capture my current “modus operandi” in local government. For those who have worked in local government, it is quickly recognized that the needs within a community far exceed the available financial resources. This is a brief story of the conversion of an old leaching dump into an Environmental Community Center for Recycling and Waste Management (nick named by the town residents as The Un-Shopping Center without drawing upon the financial support of property tax revenues.
It was a cold (15 degree) Vermont Saturday morning in January with some light snow flurries when the new Un-Shopping Center was dedicated. Rather than the typical 3 or 4 local officials anticipated at most public building dedications, there were approximately 1,200 residents present and in a celebratory mood. Why? By incorporating the creativity or our citizens and youth into the fabric of this new center they had ownership. It was their Community Center for Recycling, and each citizen expressed a personal joy for their contributions and pledge to actively participate. Now, 25 years later, I reflect that it was all because of the project team’s dedication and commitment to social capital and collaborative partnership development during the previous five years. Here are a few milestones along the way that illustrate this dedication.
As a Town Administrator, the engineers stated that the do-nothing option was no longer available, the old landfill had to be closed and the cost of $1 million was not planned or available. Only one member of the local town council had any interest in recycling. To facilitate a major paradigm shift, we looked to community members to form a guiding team to explore options, build support for change, and lead the community in the direction that they decided. This group, including a leader of a local condo association, a local business leader, an environmental educator, a regional planner, a local recycling business, and many regular citizens who wanted change came together to plan a better future. Six months later they filled a public hearing room to present to the Town Council their ideas. Although, at the beginning of the meeting, 80% of the Council expressed no interest in recycling, by the close of the testimony, the proposed radical change was unanimously endorsed by the Council. The elected leaders were following the citizens who had gained a broad authoring environment or informal authority through their social capital building and new partnerships.
This citizen leadership group had gained ownership of their proposed approach to move towards zero waste and to include all of the citizens of the community in the process. Soon teams included 100’s of citizens were going door-to-door asking their neighbors to participate in the new curb-side recycling and to support the new Un-Shopping Center that would include composting, recycling, the Good Bye (re-use) Store, and management of household hazardous waste. But even more important, over a 1000 school age youth were involved. They developed the signs, artwork, and information for the new center. All of these young people will soon “own” this new center. It was critical to give up control if you want others to step up. An illustration is when the adults thought that the entry to the education center should show the problem by art work of garbage covering the walls. The High School students who were to do this artwork responded by asking... “You said this is our project to plan and complete. We do not want to show garbage, we want to the artwork to illustrate a tropical rain forest with the animals...that we want to protect.” We responded... “This is your project...so yes!” The result was an incredible mural of a rain forest that became the gem of the center! Today, this center is still serving the community, 25 years after its opening, and is “owned” by all of the community members.
Prior to giving a community presentation on the recently opened “Un-Shopping Center”, a local university president introduced me as a “serial collaborator.” Although initially thrown off balanced by his comment, I then realized that this atypical expression appeared to capture my current “modus operandi” in local government. For those who have worked in local government, it is quickly recognized that the needs within a community far exceed the available financial resources. This is a brief story of the conversion of an old leaching dump into an Environmental Community Center for Recycling and Waste Management (nick named by the town residents as The Un-Shopping Center without drawing upon the financial support of property tax revenues.
It was a cold (15 degree) Vermont Saturday morning in January with some light snow flurries when the new Un-Shopping Center was dedicated. Rather than the typical 3 or 4 local officials anticipated at most public building dedications, there were approximately 1,200 residents present and in a celebratory mood. Why? By incorporating the creativity or our citizens and youth into the fabric of this new center they had ownership. It was their Community Center for Recycling, and each citizen expressed a personal joy for their contributions and pledge to actively participate. Now, 25 years later, I reflect that it was all because of the project team’s dedication and commitment to social capital and collaborative partnership development during the previous five years. Here are a few milestones along the way that illustrate this dedication.
As a Town Administrator, the engineers stated that the do-nothing option was no longer available, the old landfill had to be closed and the cost of $1 million was not planned or available. Only one member of the local town council had any interest in recycling. To facilitate a major paradigm shift, we looked to community members to form a guiding team to explore options, build support for change, and lead the community in the direction that they decided. This group, including a leader of a local condo association, a local business leader, an environmental educator, a regional planner, a local recycling business, and many regular citizens who wanted change came together to plan a better future. Six months later they filled a public hearing room to present to the Town Council their ideas. Although, at the beginning of the meeting, 80% of the Council expressed no interest in recycling, by the close of the testimony, the proposed radical change was unanimously endorsed by the Council. The elected leaders were following the citizens who had gained a broad authoring environment or informal authority through their social capital building and new partnerships.
This citizen leadership group had gained ownership of their proposed approach to move towards zero waste and to include all of the citizens of the community in the process. Soon teams included 100’s of citizens were going door-to-door asking their neighbors to participate in the new curb-side recycling and to support the new Un-Shopping Center that would include composting, recycling, the Good Bye (re-use) Store, and management of household hazardous waste. But even more important, over a 1000 school age youth were involved. They developed the signs, artwork, and information for the new center. All of these young people will soon “own” this new center. It was critical to give up control if you want others to step up. An illustration is when the adults thought that the entry to the education center should show the problem by art work of garbage covering the walls. The High School students who were to do this artwork responded by asking... “You said this is our project to plan and complete. We do not want to show garbage, we want to the artwork to illustrate a tropical rain forest with the animals...that we want to protect.” We responded... “This is your project...so yes!” The result was an incredible mural of a rain forest that became the gem of the center! Today, this center is still serving the community, 25 years after its opening, and is “owned” by all of the community members.
Principle I- Practice Adaptive Leadership and Co-Management
Sustainable Rural Development in the Apuseni Mountains, Romania
Prologue
The Sustainable Rural Development initiative in the Apuseni Region of Romania is an excellent example of the benefits of adaptive leadership. The initiative to bring about effective environmental change and sustainable economic development was led by Clubul Ecologic Transylvania (CET), an environmental NGO founded by young adults to lead hiking and nature expeditions in the Apuseni Mountains, and a regional council of mayors and town leaders called the Association for Rural Development of Huedin (ARDH). This region faced a range of economic, environmental, and social issues characterized by high unemployment rates, low levels of economic activity, and declining population due to the exodus of young people to urban areas. These conditions in the region had been heavily affected by the past communist regime's emphasis on large, centralized industrial development that resulted in the loss of traditional ways of living and suspicion of leaders. Therefore, these two groups realized that they not only needed to solve these problems but also to develop new and more inclusive approaches to solving them collaboratively. Their successful efforts demonstrated how a co-management approach of local government, NGOs, and private institutions working together with communities in shared decision-making can bring about effective and positive change.
Click on the Link Below to view the entire Case Study
sustainable_rural_development_in_the_apuseni_mountains_-_markowitz_6-1-19.docx | |
File Size: | 1959 kb |
File Type: | docx |